5 ms·

The web is just a beautiful publishing platform. - no permission needed (mostly) - built-in discoverability - you get to figure out whatever payment processi

The web is just a beautiful publishing platform. - no permission needed (mostly) - built-in discoverability - you get to figure out whatever payment processing you want - works on every device - update code in seconds - no copy protection needed

frereubu 2y ago
True except the part about "works on every device" is dependent on what part of the device you're trying to use, as the parent says about Bluetooth.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  I'm a bit curious about what's wrong with Bluetooth on the web. Is it just because Safari and Firefox don't support it yet?
  - leptons 2y ago
    Not just Safari and Firefox, on iOS all browsers are forced to use Safari's web view, because Apple wants to force developers to write apps so they can make 30% revenue from the app should any money exchange hands. They can't force developers to write apps if web browsers on iOS are allowed to access bluetooth and other modern browser APIs.
  - aeldidi 2y ago
    It’s important to note that it’s not a matter of effort for Firefox. They’ve decided that the it’s not something they want to implement[1]. The reasoning is that they think it allows low enough level access to potentially mess with devices who weren’t made to be resilient to malicious input, and didn’t like that the proposed method of allowing web Bluetooth is based on a default allow policy with a blocklist, which means as new Bluetooth device vulnerabilities are discovered, this blocklist has to be maintained. [1]: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth
    - mdaniel 2y ago
      Wouldn't the correct time to raise those concerns be during the web bluetooth design process? The idea that a browser decides "nah" about a web standard because they're mad about it seems like the road to ruin Then again, almost every time a Firefox thread appears here it gets filled with comments pointing out how low its adoption is so I guess "well, yeah" sums it up (he said, commenting from Firefox)
    - niutech 2y ago
      Funnily Mozilla had implemented Web Bluetooth API for Firefox OS long ago: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Bluetooth https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Bluetooth
- amelius 2y ago
  Their devices should probably just include a different interface, such as one based on a secure internet connection. Or use bridging hardware.
dotancohen 2y ago
> works on every device Assuming that the device has an up-to-date browser available for it. And today, that usually requires having a multi-MHz multi-core processor and GiBs of memory. No matter how lean your actual application/website is. I have a stack of E-Ink readers, all in terrific condition. My favorite is the B&N Nook Glowlight 3. When it was new just about five years ago, I could install a web browser on it via ADB and it would work reasonably well. Today, all the browsers are bloated beyond installable and usable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- FredPret 2y ago
  True, and regrettable; on the other hand, mobile compute is getting so much cheaper all the time. This is the driving force behind all that bloat.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  I feel your pain, though I blame the websites more than the browsers. I can run full firefox on my OG pinephone as long as the sites I visit aren't running a pile of JS lunacy. My Onyx Boox runs Firefox happily too, but for that and the pinephone I'd recommend trying out a Gemini browser (there are several on fdroid). It's lacking plenty, but has an old-web feel, no sites are slow, and you can handily use it on old devices.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > I feel your pain, though I blame the websites more than the browsers. I blame the standards organizations. I love the Boox devices as well. My Note Air 2 Plus is almost two years old, it is a terrific machine. I'd love to know what your use cases are. I mostly use it for taking notes and reading - including on the web - but I'm rather unhappy with most browsers on it including Firefox. For one thing, Firefox on Android has almost no keyboard support.
    - Y_Y 2y ago
mattgreenrocks 2y ago
Developing apps on it still seems really, really primitive. HTML alone is not sufficient for a decent looking UI. Tailwind directives gunk it up rapidly. Component frameworks help some but still don’t seem quite as nice as something like SwiftUI. Server side functionality still requires a lot of manual serialization/deserialization (unless you use the newer crop of frameworks that have figured out this is pure noise). And then there’s JS. Rails, htmx, and a few others seem like the only ones who really get that a simple web app should be 50-100loc.
- leptons 2y ago
  >HTML alone is not sufficient for a decent looking UI Well that's some nonsense. HTML can absolutely achieve 1:1 on any UI you care to mention. It isn't even difficult if you have any skill at all. >And then there’s JS. And then there's another person who didn't take the time to learn JS and just hates it for reasons. >Rails, htmx, and a few others seem like the only ones who really get that a simple web app should be 50-100loc Show me a native app with a polished UI and any useful functionality in only 50-100loc.
  - high_priest 2y ago
    I have learned JS & used it extensively in many projects. Including modern SPAs. And I absolutely despise it & wish I could use something like recently trendy GO or RUST. JS has absolutely no rhyme or reason, single threaded nature makes it gunk up browsers crazy quickly & the insane bloat of "frameworks", which attempt to completely replace already great APIs, while working on top of them... IS CRAZY!
    - leptons 2y ago
      >JS has absolutely no rhyme or reason That's really false. The type coercion matrix does make sense for the job it is supposed to accomplish, even if you personally don't agree with it for whatever your reasons are. https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/advanced-javascript-backend-basics.png https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/advanced-... If you haven't seen the info presented like this before, then I can understand why Javascript might seem "CRAZY" after reading so many blog posts by people who like to complain for clicks. If you think this chart doesn't have any "rhyme or reason", then please explain why. >single threaded nature makes it gunk up browsers crazy quickly That's one way to look at it. Another way is to learn how to work with the system you have, not the system you want. Improvements to the system can be slow, and can't be breaking changes. This is true about every system humans have ever devised. Webworkers are great, you can absolutely do multi-threaded Javascript, I've done it, it was easy. If that solves the problem in a reasonable amount of time, great, if not then I'll probably do it in C and run it from Javascript since it's so easy to write the rest of the application with Javascript. Not everything needs maximum performance. For some embedded systems I usually write 100% assembly language because every byte and clock cycle matters. But I know all of this really well, so maybe it seems easy for me. When I started with Javascript in Netscape in the early 90's, it wasn't as well documented and well supported as it is today. That version of Javascript was a bit rough around the edges. But today? Naaa. It's easy, it's got a huge support system, a lot of progressive enhancements, thousands of videos, millions of developers and about a billion blog posts on medium.com. I switch back and forth from C to Javascript and it's a great combination. Less context switching, the syntax close to 1:1 as far as I'm concerned. But C is a pain in the ass in comparison to Javascript, and I know both languages extremely well. I've been writing software almost 50 years. >the insane bloat of "frameworks" I'm using Preact for my embedded IoT front-end and the complex web app it compiles is less than 50KB total gzipped. Bloat is a choice, not a requirement. I have complex front-ends running "at web scale" based on jQuery (for business reasons). We decide every byte that gets included, and manage to score 100% on all page speed tests. No bloat. >which attempt to completely replace already great APIs, Citation needed. > IS CRAZY! People have been using Javascript successfully for decades. Sorry Javascript isn't your favorite language, but it's not as you describe it either.
hgs3 2y ago
Isn't some of what you're describing a critique of walled garden platforms rather than web vs native? e.g. When I self-publish a native desktop app, I can pick the DRM, code updater, and payment processor I use.

frereubu 2y ago

True except the part about "works on every device" is dependent on what part of the device you're trying to use, as the parent says about Bluetooth.

Ajedi32 2y ago
I'm a bit curious about what's wrong with Bluetooth on the web. Is it just because Safari and Firefox don't support it yet?
- leptons 2y ago
  Not just Safari and Firefox, on iOS all browsers are forced to use Safari's web view, because Apple wants to force developers to write apps so they can make 30% revenue from the app should any money exchange hands. They can't force developers to write apps if web browsers on iOS are allowed to access bluetooth and other modern browser APIs.
- aeldidi 2y ago
  It’s important to note that it’s not a matter of effort for Firefox. They’ve decided that the it’s not something they want to implement[1]. The reasoning is that they think it allows low enough level access to potentially mess with devices who weren’t made to be resilient to malicious input, and didn’t like that the proposed method of allowing web Bluetooth is based on a default allow policy with a blocklist, which means as new Bluetooth device vulnerabilities are discovered, this blocklist has to be maintained. [1]: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth
  - mdaniel 2y ago
    Wouldn't the correct time to raise those concerns be during the web bluetooth design process? The idea that a browser decides "nah" about a web standard because they're mad about it seems like the road to ruin Then again, almost every time a Firefox thread appears here it gets filled with comments pointing out how low its adoption is so I guess "well, yeah" sums it up (he said, commenting from Firefox)
  - niutech 2y ago
    Funnily Mozilla had implemented Web Bluetooth API for Firefox OS long ago: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Bluetooth https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Bluetooth
amelius 2y ago
Their devices should probably just include a different interface, such as one based on a secure internet connection. Or use bridging hardware.

dotancohen 2y ago

> works on every device Assuming that the device has an up-to-date browser available for it. And today, that usually requires having a multi-MHz multi-core processor and GiBs of memory. No matter how lean your actual application/website is. I have a stack of E-Ink readers, all in terrific condition. My favorite is the B&N Nook Glowlight 3. When it was new just about five years ago, I could install a web browser on it via ADB and it would work reasonably well. Today, all the browsers are bloated beyond installable and usable.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
FredPret 2y ago
True, and regrettable; on the other hand, mobile compute is getting so much cheaper all the time. This is the driving force behind all that bloat.
Y_Y 2y ago
I feel your pain, though I blame the websites more than the browsers. I can run full firefox on my OG pinephone as long as the sites I visit aren't running a pile of JS lunacy. My Onyx Boox runs Firefox happily too, but for that and the pinephone I'd recommend trying out a Gemini browser (there are several on fdroid). It's lacking plenty, but has an old-web feel, no sites are slow, and you can handily use it on old devices.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  > I feel your pain, though I blame the websites more than the browsers. I blame the standards organizations. I love the Boox devices as well. My Note Air 2 Plus is almost two years old, it is a terrific machine. I'd love to know what your use cases are. I mostly use it for taking notes and reading - including on the web - but I'm rather unhappy with most browsers on it including Firefox. For one thing, Firefox on Android has almost no keyboard support.
  - Y_Y 2y ago

mattgreenrocks 2y ago

Developing apps on it still seems really, really primitive. HTML alone is not sufficient for a decent looking UI. Tailwind directives gunk it up rapidly. Component frameworks help some but still don’t seem quite as nice as something like SwiftUI. Server side functionality still requires a lot of manual serialization/deserialization (unless you use the newer crop of frameworks that have figured out this is pure noise). And then there’s JS. Rails, htmx, and a few others seem like the only ones who really get that a simple web app should be 50-100loc.

leptons 2y ago
>HTML alone is not sufficient for a decent looking UI Well that's some nonsense. HTML can absolutely achieve 1:1 on any UI you care to mention. It isn't even difficult if you have any skill at all. >And then there’s JS. And then there's another person who didn't take the time to learn JS and just hates it for reasons. >Rails, htmx, and a few others seem like the only ones who really get that a simple web app should be 50-100loc Show me a native app with a polished UI and any useful functionality in only 50-100loc.
- high_priest 2y ago
  I have learned JS & used it extensively in many projects. Including modern SPAs. And I absolutely despise it & wish I could use something like recently trendy GO or RUST. JS has absolutely no rhyme or reason, single threaded nature makes it gunk up browsers crazy quickly & the insane bloat of "frameworks", which attempt to completely replace already great APIs, while working on top of them... IS CRAZY!
  - leptons 2y ago
    >JS has absolutely no rhyme or reason That's really false. The type coercion matrix does make sense for the job it is supposed to accomplish, even if you personally don't agree with it for whatever your reasons are. https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/advanced-javascript-backend-basics.png https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/advanced-... If you haven't seen the info presented like this before, then I can understand why Javascript might seem "CRAZY" after reading so many blog posts by people who like to complain for clicks. If you think this chart doesn't have any "rhyme or reason", then please explain why. >single threaded nature makes it gunk up browsers crazy quickly That's one way to look at it. Another way is to learn how to work with the system you have, not the system you want. Improvements to the system can be slow, and can't be breaking changes. This is true about every system humans have ever devised. Webworkers are great, you can absolutely do multi-threaded Javascript, I've done it, it was easy. If that solves the problem in a reasonable amount of time, great, if not then I'll probably do it in C and run it from Javascript since it's so easy to write the rest of the application with Javascript. Not everything needs maximum performance. For some embedded systems I usually write 100% assembly language because every byte and clock cycle matters. But I know all of this really well, so maybe it seems easy for me. When I started with Javascript in Netscape in the early 90's, it wasn't as well documented and well supported as it is today. That version of Javascript was a bit rough around the edges. But today? Naaa. It's easy, it's got a huge support system, a lot of progressive enhancements, thousands of videos, millions of developers and about a billion blog posts on medium.com. I switch back and forth from C to Javascript and it's a great combination. Less context switching, the syntax close to 1:1 as far as I'm concerned. But C is a pain in the ass in comparison to Javascript, and I know both languages extremely well. I've been writing software almost 50 years. >the insane bloat of "frameworks" I'm using Preact for my embedded IoT front-end and the complex web app it compiles is less than 50KB total gzipped. Bloat is a choice, not a requirement. I have complex front-ends running "at web scale" based on jQuery (for business reasons). We decide every byte that gets included, and manage to score 100% on all page speed tests. No bloat. >which attempt to completely replace already great APIs, Citation needed. > IS CRAZY! People have been using Javascript successfully for decades. Sorry Javascript isn't your favorite language, but it's not as you describe it either.

hgs3 2y ago

Isn't some of what you're describing a critique of walled garden platforms rather than web vs native? e.g. When I self-publish a native desktop app, I can pick the DRM, code updater, and payment processor I use.